To the average citizen of Waterford, the latest planning row there must seem, literally, like a storm in a dilapidated fish shop. But it has prompted the city fathers to contemplate direct defiance of a Bord Pleanala decision, driven yet another wedge between the elected councillors and An Taisce, and given rise to a spate of local mutterings about political interference in the planning process.
At the heart of this furore are two unprepossessing, and indeed semi-derelict, buildings in Broad Street, which is probably the city's busiest central shopping street but hardly, by any stretch of the imagination, an elegant and harmonious thoroughfare.
Yet Nos 17 and 18 Broad Street, decrepit as they appear, have two attributes which have exacerbated this row: they are old, probably over 200 years, and they are listed buildings.
Because of this listing, An Taisce was routinely notified when the owners proposed demolition and redevelopment to provide retail use on two lower floors and five apartments overhead.
The £1 million redevelopment was planned by John and Brendan Whittle, who had operated the family wholesale and retail fish business known as Flanagans at No 18 for many years.
Last March Waterford Corporation decided to grant permission for the development, even though the buildings were listed in the 1994 City Development Plan.
An Taisce appealed the decision to An Bord Pleanala, arguing that to allow the demolition would undermine all the other listed properties in Waterford city.
In its submission, An Taisce commented: "An attitude of disposal at will when there are tax incentives and development in the air has arisen in this city and we, as an association, genuinely feel that no building can be deemed to be safe, should Flanagans be allowed to be demolished."
Later an inspector from An Bord Pleanala drew up a report recommending that the planning permission be upheld.
He noted consultants' reports which concluded that the poor structural condition of the buildings would in any case require extensive structural remedial works to satisfy current building regulations, and that significant demolition and replacement would be needed to meet fire standards.
As with all buildings of historical significance, he commented, preservation was desirable "but must also take into account the practicalities involved . . ." He was satisfied that to retain the buildings for contemporary purposes "would require an investment beyond what could be considered normal expenditure or maintenance, and that the end result, besides providing space of below standard requirements, would still result in a compromise between conservation and the requirements of the Building/ Fire Regulations".
Shock spread among Waterford councillors (not to mention the buildings' owners) when it emerged last week that An Bord Pleanala has decided to refuse permission, in spite of its own inspector's recommendation.
The board firmly grounded its decision on the objectives of the 1994 City Development Plan and the fact that the buildings were listed for protection. Waterford Corporation has thus found itself with a classic Catch 22 dilemma.
The local councillors were particularly incensed because it had emerged recently that the prestigious client who had been lined up to lease the retail section of the proposed redevelopment was the international pharmacy chain, Boots, which would have opened a branch there employing some 30 people.
While roundly denouncing both An Taisce and An Bord Pleanala, the councillors have now determined to set about delisting the premises concerned, thus clearing the way for the commercial development to try to proceed by way of a fresh planning application.
The delisting procedure could take up to four months, and there is no guarantee that An Bord Pleanala will not again overturn, on appeal, a city council decision to grant permission for the new application.
Meanwhile Broad Street, it seems, is stuck with two decaying buildings, and the Whittles, who are moving their fish business to more suitable premises, find their options for the buildings firmly constrained.
"They have effectively told us we can't do anything with the building unless we restore it, which is not financially viable," said John Whittle, who points out that the premises are deteriorating daily.
His brother points out that, as the buildings stand, they cannot be let. "We're from Waterford," said Brendan Whittle. "We like to see Waterford developing and architecturally intact. But if the buildings themselves are crumbling and have no great merit . . ."
The brothers claim that not just the city councillors, but most of the business community, supported the redevelopment proposal.
All sides agree that the Whittles had sought to co-operate with the conservationists' case, agreeing to make changes in the plans and preserve aspects of the buildings seen as valuable, such as the window style.
A tour of the interior of No 18 this week revealed it to be in an extremely rundown condition, with cracks in the walls, falling plaster, rickety floors and no obviously striking aesthetic features. It is difficult not to concur with the planning inspector's conclusions that preservation of the premises in their present form is not practical.
However, An Taisce stoutly defends its position on the issue. Its Waterford branch secretary, Mr Des Griffin, said it was guided by two main principles: the buildings were listed for preservation, and Dr Freddie O'Dwyer, an expert from the National Monuments section of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, had written to the corporation saying that they had been surveyed as part of the National Inventory of Architecture, and that planning permission should be refused.
An Taisce's stand was decided on by a vote of its local branch executive committee. While this controversy seems set to run for months, if not years, the more serious issue for Waterford with other major planning issues in the pipeline is the heightened tension and alienation between the city's councillors and planners, on the one hand, and the conservationist lobby on the other.
Both sides are convinced that they are doing what is best for Waterford. Such neutral observers as can be found in the city feel there is an urgent need for bridge-building and honest arbitration between them, to see if they can find common cause.
In the divisive case involving the buildings, as unsubstantiated rumours of interference and influence proliferate, it might seem that the only effective resolution of the dilemma could lie in bringing the cold eye of a High Court judicial review to bear on the whole situation. But who will fund it?